First, Millcreek, I'll try to find time to read the law review article. It may have more insight on the subject and the impacts. I can see how changing the reasoning behind a decision may be important in trying to apply the law. Lord knows how often I've cited to SCOTUS opinions, and I should only assume that the quotes are still accurate. I wonder though, without reading the law review, how a justice would react if a previously printed quote was offered in support of a position? Does the Justice try to deny ever writing the original, explain why a change was made, or take the easy way out, say "that's not the law" and not discuss it any further.
Fist, can't guarantee anything, but in every court I've practiced in, any revised decisions or orders are distributed among the parties. I'm assuming that is done here. I'm thinking that there isn't as much attention paid as with the original opinion, because the revisions aren't as news worthy, especially in this day and age where half of the people reading the stories are only looking for the American Idol vote count, and could care less if a Justice changed an opinion...
